During the recent debate between Dr. James White and Dr. Peter Van Kleeck, there was a brief discussion about Matthew 5:18 and the meaning of “jot and tittle”. The assertion which Dr. Van Kleeck was affirming, in relation to the topic of the debate which was “The Textus Receptus is equal to NT Autographs“, was that the Protestant Reformers (and even into the Post-Reformation) saw this passage as having great meaning for his position. What greater authority should one have than when Jesus said that “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”? Van Kleeck was citing that statement as proof that the Textus Receptus perfectly represents the autographs of the New Testament scriptures as written by the Apostles or their scribes. It seems that from Van Kleeck’s perspective, Jesus assured us that not even a “jot and tittle” would be different – and he firmly believes that the Textus Receptus contains every “jot and tittle” of the autographs.In a section beginning at 1:20:13, Van Kleeck stated the following:Matthew 5:18 okay so he [Dr. White] says it doesn’t mean “jot and tittle”. Yes it does. See how that argument works you can just get up and hand wave and be like “it doesn’t mean ‘jot and tittle’ it means law” and I’d be like “No, it actually does mean ‘jot and tittle’ right and we can fight about it and he can say “I got guys nowadays and they’re going to say it doesn’t mean ‘jot and tittle’ it means law.” and I’ll be like “I got guys who say it actually means ‘jot and tittle’ I quoted guys to you in my opening statement that said “words, syllables, and letters”. Sound like ‘jot and tittle’ to you? Sound like it was from the Protestant Reformation? Yes.Below let us look briefly at several statements from some “guys nowadays” who stated that “jot and tittle” has reference to the Law and not, rather, to the pure preservation of the New Testament autographs (and Scripture as a whole). Before I go into that, I wanted to draw a brief parallel to something else that Dr. Van Kleeck would assert near the end of the debate in one of the final cross-examination sections. He was pushing back on Dr. White in claiming that James appeared to be saying that the people in the pew could not ever properly understand Scripture without being able to read it in the original Hebrew and Greek. Dr. Van Kleeck was wrong in asserting that of Dr. White, but he was right in his concern that we as believers have a Bible that we can understand in our own language. As we have seen above in his concern that “jot and tittle” is not taken as “words, syllables, and letters”, we must necessarily apply this to the translations that we have. However, we also will see below that “jots and tittles” were considered to be “bendings” and “bowings” that were on the top of some Hebrew letters. Since this is not a consideration in English translations, for example, what assurances can Dr. Van Kleeck give us that one translation of the Old Testament gives us the sense of those bendings and bowings over against another translation?Thomas White, a member of the Westminster Assembly, stated the following in his comments on Matthew 5:18. His conclusion is that even though some things may appear to have been put in the Law needlessly, they were not.Here he goes further, for before he said that he did not come to destroy; and here he assures them that it shall never be destroyed, nor cease till it be in every point fulfilled. 2. See how Christ preacheth with authority, I say. 3. By one jot or tittle is meant, not the lest part or point. 4. By consequence, that not one jot or tittle, nothing, not a word, not a letter, not a title of the Law is in vain put there, and as jod and iota, are not only the least letters, but divers times though they were written, are not pronounced, and so seem needlesse letters: So though some things in the Law seem not only small but needlesse, yet they are not in vain, for till heaven and earth, &c. 5. Till, doth not alwayes argue Psal. 110.1.Henry Hammond, also a member of the Westminster Assembly, in his annotations on Matthew 5:18 stated the following in summary of his discussion of the possible etymologies of “jot and tittle”:And accordingly it is here set to denote any the smallest inconsiderable parts, any minutiae in the Law.John Prideaux, in a sermon, can be found to have stated the following on Matthew 5:18:It was not for nought, our Saviour interserts this Item, in his sermon on the Mount, Mat. 5.18. one jot, or one title, shall in no wise passe from the law, till all be fulfilled. Jots and tittles then in the law, are not superfluous curiosities, but such as the right use of them, may make to cleare the Text, and are worthy of exactest scanning.John Calvin, in his commentary on Matthew 5:18, also took this verse to refer to the contents of the law in general.Let it suffice for us to hold, that sooner shall heaven fall to pieces, and the whole frame of the world become a mass of confusion, than the stability of the law shall give way. But what does it mean, that every part of the law shall be fulfilled down to the smallest point? for we see, that even those, who have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, are very far from keeping the law of God in a perfect manner. I answer, the expression, shall not pass away, must be viewed as referring, not to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine. “There is nothing in the law that is unimportant, nothing that was put there at, random; and so it is impossible that a single letter shall perish.”Martin Luther, on Matthew 5:18, would also make similar statements.That is, I insist upon it, that it must all be taught and held pure and entire, and not the least part of it be done away; whereby he shows that he found it far otherwise, namely, that both doctrine and life had not been rightly conducted. Therefore he must (as here follows) take in hand both of these and thoroughly salt them, that there may be a purification. So also must we teach that we do not allow a letter to be detached from the gospel, but say: Everything must be taught, believed and held purely. He thus intimates that he is about to preach a sharp sermon, and will not lie under the charge that he means to destroy the law; but will turn the attack from himself upon them, and prove how they have weakened and destroyed the law, and for this have daubed their glosses over it. Just as our papistic neighbors have done with the gospel and the Scriptures, when they utterly ignored the most important topic, justification by faith; also, they have withheld one form from the sacrament and concealed the words of the sacrament; yes, they have so coarsely misrepresented, that they have preached these commandments which Christ here announces, not as necessary statutes, but as merely good counsels, directly contrary to these words and stipulations, that sooner heaven and earth must pass away than that one of the least of these be not observed.Finally, William Perkins, in a sermon exposition of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, stated what we find below. He first discusses the background of the words but then states that we should not take it “properly” as meaning that letters may not have been changed. Rather we can rest assured knowing that the meaning has not been changed.Again, by Title some think is meant the Hebrew vowels; but properly it signifieth a line bent crooked, or the top of an horn; so that here it properly signifieth the bending or bowing that is in the top of some Hebrew letters; insinuating, that not so much as the least part of a letter in the Law should passe away. Now these things must not be taken properly, for it hath been, and may be, that in the Hebrew copies of the old Testament, some letters should be changed, as may appear by the diverse readings in sundrie copies; for that may be without the loss of any sentence: but Christs meaning is this; That not the least parcel or sentence in the Law shall pass away; making parts in the Law, to be as tittles in the Alphabet…. this is the meaning of this verse; That the Law of God is unchangeable, not only in the whole, but for every part thereof; and the fulfilling thereof shall never have an end. Christ’s reason then stands thus; If the Law be immutable, and for observation eternal, then I came not to destroy it: but the Law is immutable and eternal; and therefore I came not to destroy it.

Had some fun with a new video from Gene Kim, played a new RFG intro, looked a little at Steven Anderson and the TRTrads, delving into issues of textual criticism, the transmission of the text, etc. Then for the last 20 minutes or so transitioned into an important discussion about the supernatural and the life of the Bible-believing, sola scriptura

This is a follow up to Part 1 and Part 2 in this blog series where I will go through the works of John Owen detailing where he has mentioned Thomas Aquinas. I hope that this series is helpful.In this third part, I would like to look at two different types of usage. First will be a couple of disagreements in which Thomas is mentioned alone, not in a list of others. Second, there are what appear to be a few points of agreement, one where Thomas is mentioned alone and another among a few others. Also note that these first three posts do not deal with Owen’s usage of Aquinas in the Hebrews volumes. I believe I will begin working through those in part 5.As I mentioned previously, there are 20 of the 36 works that do not have any mention of Thomas Aquinas (not even in editorial footnotes). And from the other 16 books there are only 36 mentions of Thomas Aquinas. The first two parts covered 11 of those 36 mentions and this post will cover an additional 4. At this point, the 15 mentions of Aquinas only span 8 books. Counting the 20 without mentions, this is 28 of the 36 books which we will have covered by the end of this post.Mentions of Thomas Aquinas where Owen disagreed with himIn “Owen’s Works, Volume 03, Part 1 – Pneumatologia”, Owen offers a disagreement with Thomas regarding the means of revelation.1. Prophecy: The distinct outward manners and ways of revelation mentioned in the Scriptures may be reduced to three heads: 1. Voices; 2. Dreams; and 3. Visions.And there are two incidental adjuncts of it: 1. Symbolic actions; and 2. Local movements.The schoolmen, following Aquinas, 22. q. 174, a. 1, commonly reduce the means of revelation to three heads, for there are three ways by which we come to know anything — 1. By our external senses; 2. By impressions on the fantasy or imagination; and 3. By pure acts of the understanding.So God revealed his will to the prophets in three ways —1. By objects of their senses, such as audible voices;2. By impressions on the imagination in dreams and visions;3. By illustration or enlightening of their minds.But because this last way expresses divine inspiration, I cannot acknowledge it as a distinct way of revelation by itself — for it was absolutely necessary to give an infallible assurance of mind in the other ways also.In “Owen’s Works, Volume 12 – The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated”, he relates a discussion between Franken and Socinus regarding “a twofold religious worship”. Owen, of course, disagreed with the assertion by Thomas Aquinas that the same worship is due to an image of Christ or a crucifix that is due to Christ.XIX: The next argument of Franken, whereby he brought his adversary to another absurdity, had its rise from a distinction given by Socinus about a twofold religious worship;—one kind whereof, without any medium, was directed to God; the other is yielded him by Christ as a means. The first he says is proper to God, the other belongs to Christ only. Now, he is blind that doth not see that, for what he doth here to save himself, he doth but beg the thing in question. Who granted him that there was a twofold religious worship,—one of this sort, and another of that? Is it a sufficient answer, for a man to repeat his own hypothesis to answer an argument lying directly against it? He grants, indeed, upon the matter all that Franken desired,—namely, that Christ was not to be worshipped with that worship wherewith God is worshipped, and consequently not with divine. But Franken asks him whether this twofold worship was of the same kind or no? to which he answered, that it was because it abode not in Christ, but through him passed to God. Upon which, after the interposition of another entangling question, the man thus replies unto him: “This, then, will follow, that even the image of Christ is to be worshipped, because one and the same worship respects the image as the means, Christ as the end, as Thomas Aquinas tells us, from whom you borrowed your figment.” Yet this very fancy Socinus seems afterward to illustrate, by taking a book in his hand, sliding it along upon a table, showing how it passed by some hands where truly it was, but stayed not till it came to the end: for which gross allusion he was sufficiently derided by his adversary. I shall not insist on the other arguments wherewith on his own hypothesis he was miserably gravelled by this Franken, and after all his pretence of reason forced to cry out, “These are philosophical arguments, and contrary to the gospel.” The disputation is extant, with the notes of Socinus upon it, for his own vindication; which do not indeed one whit mend the matter. And of this matter thus far.Mentions of Thomas Aquinas where Owen agreed with himIn “Owen’s Works, Volume 10, Part 2 – The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”, Owen brings up an objection to free Grace that is made by Arminians in his day. Looking back over this one, Owen actually does mention Thomas here as being in line with Augustine and Calvin’s objections to the matter.Chapter 21: First, That which is now by some made to be a new doctrine of free Grace is indeed an old objection against it. That a non-necessity of satisfaction by Christ, as a consequent of eternal election, was more than once, for the substance of it, objected to Austin by the old Pelagian heretics, upon his clearing and vindicating, that doctrine, is most apparent. The same objection, renewed by others, is also answered by Calvin, Institut. lib. 2, cap. 16; as also divers schoolmen had before, in their way, proposed it to themselves, as Thom. 3. g. 49, a. 4. Yet, notwithstanding the apparent senselessness of the thing itself, together with the many solid answers whereby it was long before removed, the Arminians, at the Synod of Dort, greedily snatched it up again, and placed it in the very front of their arguments against the effectual redemption of the elect by Jesus Christ. Now, that which was in them only an objection is taken up by some amongst us as a truth, the absurd inconsequent consequence of it owned as just and good, and the conclusion deemed necessary, from the granting of election to the denial of satisfaction.And, finally, in “Owen’s Works, Volume 10, Part 1 – Display of Arminianism”, Owen is discussing God’s secret and revealed wills and how there must be some distinctions. This section starts with a quotation that can be found in Thomas and Owen also agrees with how Thomas says that the revealed will can only metaphorically be called God’s will as it is a sign of His will.Chapter 5: “Divinum velle est ejus esse,” 130 say the schoolmen: “The will of God is nothing but God willing;” it does not differ from his essence “secundem rem,” in the thing itself, but only “secundem rationem,” in a relation to the thing that is willed. The essence of God being a most absolute, pure, and simple act or substance, his will can only and simply be one; we ought to make neither division nor distinction in it. If what signifies God’s will was always taken properly and strictly for the eternal will of God, then the distinctions that are usually made about it, are distinctions about the signification of the word, rather than the thing itself.In this regard, these distinctions are not only tolerable, but necessary, because without them it is utterly impossible to reconcile some places of Scripture that are seemingly repugnant to one another. In the 22nd chapter of Gen, verse 2, God commands Abraham to take his only son Isaac, and offer him for a burnt-offering in the land of Moriah. Here the words of God declare some will of God to Abraham, who knew it ought to be performed, and thought little but that it should be. Yet, when he actually addressed himself to his duty, in obedience to the will of God, he received a countermand in verse 12, that he should not lay his hand upon the child to sacrifice him. The event plainly manifests that it was the will of God that Isaac should not be sacrificed; and yet notwithstanding, by reason of his command, Abraham beforehand seemed bound to believe that it was well-pleasing to God that he should accomplish what he was enjoined to do. If the will of God in the Scripture is conceived of in only one way, then here is a plain contradiction. Thus God commands Pharaoh to let his people go. Could Pharaoh think otherwise? No. Was he not bound to believe that it was the will of God that he should dismiss the Israelites at the first hearing of the message? Yet God affirms that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not allow them to depart until God had showed his signs and wonders in the land of Egypt. To reconcile these and similar places in Scripture, the ancient fathers and schoolmen, along with modern divines, affirm that the one will of God may be said to be diverse or manifold with regard to the various ways by which he wills things to be done, and in other respects. Yet, taken in its proper signification, God’s will is simply one and the same. The common distinction between God’s secret will, and his revealed will, is such that all the other distinctions may be reduced to these two; and therefore I have chosen to insist upon it.The Secret Will of God is his eternal, unchangeable purpose concerning all things which he has made, to be brought to their appointed ends by certain means. He himself affirms that “his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure,” Isaiah 46:10. Some call this the absolute, efficacious will of God, the will of his good pleasure, which is always fulfilled. Indeed this is the only proper, eternal, constant, immutable will of God, whose order can neither be broken nor its law transgressed, so long as there is neither change nor shadow of turning with him. Jas 1.17The Revealed Will of God does not contain his purpose and decree, but our duty – not what he will do according to his good pleasure, but what we should do if we would please him; and this will, consisting of his word, his precepts and promises, belongs to us and our children, so that we may do the will of God. Now this, indeed, is to< qelhto >n rather than to< qe >lhma – that which God wills, rather than his will – but what we call the will of a man is what he has determined shall be done: “This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life,” says our Savior, John 6:40; that is, this is what his will has appointed. Hence it is called “voluntas signi,” or the sign of his will. It is only metaphorically called his will, says Aquinas; 131 for inasmuch as our commands are the signs of our wills, the same is said of the precepts of God. This is the rule of our obedience, the transgression of which makes an action sinful; for hJ aJmarti >a ejstia, “sin is the transgression of a law;” such a law is given to the transgressor to be observed. Now, God has not imposed on us the observation of his eternal decree and intention (his secret will); and as it is utterly impossible for us to transgress or frustrate it, we would be unblamable if we should. A master requires of his servant to do what he commands, not to accomplish what he intends, which perhaps he never revealed to him. No, the commands of superiors are not always signs that the commander would have the things commanded actually performed, but only that those who are subject to his command are obliged to obedience, as far as the sense of that extends. “Et hoc clarum est in praeceptis divinis,” says Durand,132 etc. – “And this is clear in the commands of God,” by which we are obliged to do what he commands. Yet it is not always his pleasure that the thing itself, in regard to the event, should be accomplished, as we saw before in the examples of Pharaoh and Abraham.Footnote 130: Aquinas, p. q. 19, ar. ad. 1.Footnote 131: Aquin., q. g. 19, a. 11, c.